By Fara McCune
We've learned in previous posts that
access to information is a critical component of democracy. As
students in an on-line program, we tend to take affordable,
high-speed internet access for granted. But for many, internet
access is unaffordable and/or unavailable. This so-called “digital
divide” is one of many reasons why the information technology role
of public libraries has continued to grow and remains a critical part
of their service to their communities.
It's not just the physical
infrastructure that is affected by the government's information
policy. These policies also affect the affordability of access and
which information may be accessed by whom (Jaeger, 2007). Even after
access is provided, the information may not be available to all due
to a lack of skills to use the technology, or due to disabilities,
location, or cost. According to Muir & Oppenheim, our government
recognizes that the digital divide is actually worsening along racial
and socioeconomic lines, and this may serve to reinforce problematic
class divisions within our society (2002).
Given that resources will always be
scarce, how should we prioritize providing access to information to
everyone? Should we spend those scare tax dollars to run fiber optic
cable for high-speed internet to a rural elementary school, or should
we use those dollars to fund special equipment for disabled users in
an urban public library? What about our responsibilities to the
global community? Should those funds be used to provide internet
access in other countries? What do you think?
References
Jaeger, P. T. (2007). Information policy, information
access, and democratic participation: The national and international
implications of the Bush administration’s information politics.
[Article]. Government Information Quarterly,
24(4),
840-859. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.004
Muir, A., & Oppenheim, C. (2002). National
Information Policy Developments Worldwide II: Universal
Access-Addressing the Digital Divide. Journal
of Information Science, 28(4),
263-273.
Nice post-- I like your questions about the tradeoffs we need to make when it comes to accessibility. I don't quite agree that resources will inevitably be scarce, since I think it's really a matter of what we as a nation choose to prioritize, but I agree that resources are scarce now and will likely continue to be unless our values undergo a significant shift.
ReplyDeleteYour question about our responsibility to the global community reminded me of an interesting project that my library leader, Tefko Saracevic, was involved in. It was called the Selective Medical Library on Microfiche project, and was funded by the Rockfeller Foundation. The goal was to install a digital library of biomedical literature in health institutions in developing countries. Journal articles are expensive, and without access to existing medical research, health professionals in developing countries are pretty significantly hampered in the care they can provide. I realized when reading up on this how we, in the U.S., really take information access for granted; it's difficult to imagine our health institutions going without access to medical journals. As big of a divide as there is within our own borders, it's sobering to realize how much bigger that divide is on a global scale.
Saracevic, T. (1988). Selective Medical Library on Microfiche. An international experiment supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 76(1), 44-53.